News

privacy

Typically well-reasoned and published since 1843, many believe that the Economist is the finest English-print magazine in the world. The magazine tackles complex global issues with a balance and perspective that only a 170+ year history can provide. That is why, in the context of the media fury surrounding the “Panama Papers,” that the Economist’s suggestion to publish individual global tax returns (April 9th edition) deserved to be publically questioned. To the credit of the publication, Gregory Crawford’s letter to the Editor is published in the April 30th print edition. In the letter, the President of Alliance Trust argues that no benefit will come from such a disclosure plan or the OCED’s related “Common Reporting Standards.” The impact of sharing detailed personal financial information with rogue governments around the world will not increase U.S. tax revenues by a cent. In fact, the only meaningful outcome of the proposals is to violate basic personal privacy significantly increase the physical and financial risk to law-abiding citizens and their families around the world.

The New York Times “Room for Debate” opinion pages recently asked Gregory Crawford, The President of Alliance Trust Company in Reno to comment on the Panama Papers and the advantages of and lawful usages of shell companies. In this piece, Greg notes that the vast majority of these companies are used legally, providing a layer of security and privacy for international families in an increasingly dangerous world.

The interest of non-US citizens using foreign grantor trusts in Nevada is increasing dramatically. Many countries are now recklessly sharing highly-sensitive and otherwise confidential individual financial information with rogue governments around the world under the OCED’s “Common Reporting Standards.” This program, which thankfully the United States is not participating in, gathers and automatically exchanges individual names, addresses, tax identification numbers, and financial account balances with the governments of Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Georgia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Tunisia, and Uganda, to name a few. Where the information might go from there, no one knows. Many of these countries have Horrific human rights records and serious corruption issues. Automatically sharing this data will undoubtedly expose law-abiding individuals to the risk of extortion, kidnapping or worse. The United States should remain proudly “non-compliant” with the CRS and its efforts to violate personal privacy.

it is worth noting that the State of Nevada offers excellent privacy provisions when establishing business entities such as LLCs, and there are options for the US and non-US citizens to keep their financial affairs private in trust. Please contact Alliance Trust for more information at 775-297-4000.

Nevada Incomplete Non-Grantor Trusts (or, “NINGs”) are growing in popularity and usage across the country. NINGs provide the grantor of the trust asset protection and the potential to minimize local and state income taxes on investable/intangible assets. As this NASDAQ.com Article on NINGS, these types of trusts are not for everyone.

However, a family living in a high-income tax state with significant taxable income and appreciated investments (or investments expected to appreciate) can benefit from a NING. This is just one of many Nevada trust planning strategies that makes Nevada the Asset Protection Trust Rankings If you are interested in learning more about NINGs, please read this Article by attorney Gordon Schaller and call Greg Crawford at Alliance Trust Company in Reno at 775-297-4684.

Alliance Trust’s Greg Crawford appeared in the New York Times over the weekend, discussing the issue of “perpetual trusts.” The link to the article is here. Trust law in the United States evolved from England, which via case law established the “Rule Against Perpetuities” in 1682. This law, refined by future cases, effectively limited trust duration to approximately 90-100 years. Recently, many states and foreign countries have either repealed the rule or have extended the duration of trusts far beyond the legal relic of the rule. Nevada trusts can last for as long as 365 years. In the NYT Greg discusses how a Nevada court would react to another court asserting jurisdiction over a Nevada trust, and how Nevada protects its trust and estates industry. Alliance has worked for years with the legislature to enhance and protect what many consider to be the best trust laws in the country. If you have questions as to how a Nevada trust could benefit you and your family for generations to come, call Greg Crawford in Reno at 775-297-4684.

It is a painful reality that many times the passing of a loved one can set the stage for family conflicts. Quarreling over assets and family keepsakes can spiral out of control, damaging family relationships for years. Some families never recover. This is the last outcome a person wants for those left behind. While no estate plan is fool-proof in this regards, there are several strategies to minimize family fighting after you pass away. The first step is not to assume things will be harmonious – people that make this assumption often fail to plan for their estates at all, setting the stage for lengthy, expensive legal battles. Ask the right questions when establishing your estate plan, take the advice of attorneys and your team of advisors and communicate with the family what and why you are structuring things in a particular way. Clear communication of your goals, wishes and intent with in families is often the crucial factor in defusing a potentially contentious estate.

Everyone needs an estate plan, so that their wishes for property, charities and heirs are known. It can be helpful to look at what others do to gain insights and ideas as to how one may structure their own plans. Because of regulatory filings for political figures, we have insights into how the Clinton family has structured their estate plan.

When Silicon Valley executive Tom Perkins recently commented on the perceived persecution being felt by the wealthy in the current climate in America, he was widely criticized for his comments (and choice of analogy). Yet a few others, including Sam Zell, agreed with his general perception of the vilification of the rich. It doesn’t seem so long ago that people toasted the young, brash technology companies as “industry disruptors.” My how things have changed – Time magazine has gone so far to suggested that San Francisco is now “Resentment City.” Vandals in one prominent Silicon Valley town are spray painting “F— the 1%” on homes and automobiles – the FBI is aiding local police in the investigation.